Talk:Flint
Template:Flint What I have done here may appear redundant with the links on the main article, but I would love to do something like with Dax to each and every identity taken by Flint. If we are agreed that each of Flints Identities should be linked together like this then we should unlink the list in the main article. --TOSrules 00:34, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) : I agree, something needed to be done with the character with many names. I'm not sure if this is it, exactly, but its definately a move in the right direction. --Alan del Beccio 01:03, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) I made the neat little template (found at Template:Aliases of Flint for editing) to add to the pages. I'm sort of wonder that if we decide to keep it, that we disambiguate Brack and Akharin from Flint. --Alan del Beccio 01:26, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::Brack and Akharin is an issue. I am sure with most characters with multiple names won't need this method. But in the case of Flint, his identities are over a long period of time and since most have there own articles should be interlinked. --TOSrules 06:41, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) BTW thanks for entertaining this idea --TOSrules 06:45, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) : I altered the template slightly, I also pulled Brack out of the article, I just didnt have the motovation to dissect Akharin from it. --Alan del Beccio 08:51, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::Well Akhraan is the best candidate for his own article. Of all his lives, he describes this one in the most detail. He describes where and when he was born, that he was a bully, I think he says he was a soldier, and his death. These details are the life of Akhraan. --TOSrules 06:22, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure adding Flint back to the template was very productive. Seeing that the title of the template is "Previous aliases of Flint" and being that Flint is linked at that point, it seems redundant to have him listed in the template twice, much less the fact that Flint isn't technically a "previous alias". --Alan del Beccio 06:35, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Sorry but I found without him linked somewhere navigation becomes poor. I was on another Identity and couldn't get a link to Flint, except for Akharaan which might not be a redirect soon. --TOSrules 06:39, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) I already wrote Akhraan, however, by all means, change it as necessary. In other news, youre wrong about him not being linked in the template in the way i originally had it. What I was saying, was that it was already linked in the navigation in the title "Previous aliases of Flint". So having it in both the title and in the "list" was redundant. --Alan del Beccio 06:58, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) See: :: In that respects I may have been wrong to put that link in, but you know the color you have do not work well together. I can hardly se the text on top the link appears almost invisible. The same problem can be found on Dax. --TOSrules 07:17, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) Androids In TNG it is said that Data and his "brothers" are the most sophisticated androids ever. but the one created by flint doesn't seem inferior, it is even capable of emotion. Does that mean that by TNG era, history has lost all record of it? --Rami : I believe Kirk told Flint that he was going to keep Flint's secret, and this probably would cover Rayna Kapec as well. Kirk has a knack for not telling anyone of the historical figures he meets (Flint, Khan, Cochrane).--Tim Thomason 17:59, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) * They are also different types of androids. I think there was a discussion on this once on Flare, but I'm too lazy to look it up, so if youre interested you know where to find it. ;) --FuturamaGuy 19:41, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) * In VOY Janeway says it is rumoured that Kirk met Leonardo da Vinci, but it is all just a rumour. So it is possible that Kirk promised Flint not to tell his secret. People began to rumour things about Flint's true identity, but no one could prove anything. **Well, not rumoured, the dialogue actually goes like this: :::''Janeway: "James T. Kirk claimed he met him although the evidence is less than conclusive."'' ::So it rather seems that Kirk did tell people he met Leonardo and they didn't believe him ;-) --Jörg 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ::::It could also mean that Kirk learned of Flint's eventual death, and then felt able to discuss it. - Roygbiv666 01:48, August 19, 2010 (UTC) Immortal? Since the article states that Flint eventually dies, isn't refering to him as "an immortal human" a bit inaccurate? I realize that he was called "immortal" on the show, but this was before he discovers he is dying. If I do change the article, I am not sure whether "previously immortal" or "extremely long-lived" is more appropriate. Suggestions are appreciated. --Commodore Sixty-Four 12:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC) :An old post, but I'd like to resurrect it because it's a valid point. Who here thought McCoy was lying when he told Kirk that Flint only had a few more months/years (I don't remember how long) to live? :p 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) That's something that bugged me. Flint's been off Earth for at least two hundred years and yet it's only now that he's starting to die? McCoy said that's its was earth's magnetic field or something that caused the immortality. Surely then he wouldn't be immortal the second he left earth.--A Pickering 00:37, January 27, 2010 (UTC) Actually, McCoy didn't say "magnetic." What he said was: "Those, uh, tricorder readings on Mr. Flint are finally correlated. He's dying. See Flint, in leaving Earth with all of it's complex fields within which he was formed, sacrificed immortality. He'll live the remainder of a normal life-span, then die." As you can see, McCoy he made no mention of magnetic fields, just "complex fields." What exactly was he referring to? Subspace fields? Quantum fields? Gravitational fields? Ecological fields? Who knows? It seems the writers were deliberately ambiguous on this one.DCSarge 05:57, December 3, 2011 (UTC) Flint chronology I have to say, I love the Flint Chronology, but does it belong here or on Akraan? --TOSrules 05:04, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Hmm, my thoughts were that, it was as Flint that the history was revealed. However, I suppose we could always copy it to Akraan and have it on both, as an overview. Certainly wouldn't be the first time we have duplicated info around here. --Alan del Beccio 05:22, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC) I wonder what other memebers think. --TOSrules 07:26, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::Three years later but a question about this. Has anything ever been put forward about what he was doing in ? Flint was obviously alive, but under what alias who knows... -FleetCaptain 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Events during Flint's life Just a thought, but perhaps these can be merged in: 1484 1893 1930 , 1957 1967 , 1968 1969 1986 1992 Eugenics Wars 2000 2024 2063 2151 2156 Earth-Romulan War -FleetCaptain 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC) : Somewhat rhetorical, but were they all referenced in the episode he appeared in, as the rest of the stuff in the chronology is? --Alan del Beccio 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Nope, not in the episode. I have an idea of how to do it which wouldnt break the rules. Main goal would be to show he was living when the events took place. I think it is very neat that in , when Kirk and his gang were walking around San Francisco, Flint was somewhere on Earth (Khan was too, BTW). Just a neat tie-in that I am trying to make within canon. -FleetCaptain 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) : I guess I wasn't clear. These recently added reference haves about ZERO to do with Flint. They do not reference Flint, nor does Flint influence the events, they just happen while he was alive, as again, this article is about Flint, and the "chronology" was suppose to be something akin to the biological timeline @ Christopher Pike's page, all direct time references, and not the hodge-podge timeline of this and that, that this has turned into. --Alan del Beccio 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I think you are incorrect about it having "zero to do with Flint". If you see what I've done, I stated that people who Flint would later meet travled back to another era where a past version of Flint also lived. Then there is the general stuff like he lived to see all World Wars and the Eugenics Wars plus background notes about episode flash backs which occured during his life. I think its coming along rather nicely. I plan to ask for a peer review when its all put together and then possibly go for a Featured Article. Flint has always been one of my most favorite characters. -FleetCaptain 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) ::I have to agree with Alan. There is a lot of material that needs to be trimmed. Did Flint ever discuss or mention the Eugenics wars or Khan? If not, it doesn't belong. I know he didn't say anything about the Millennium Gate, so that definitely needs to come out. Just because they happened during his life doesn't mean they need mention in the article. We aren't mentioning Chronowerx here either. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I'm fine with trimming, this is after all a big expansion project and help from others is welcome. Does everyone agree I'm doing a pretty good job so far? As for the issues, I think mentioning that he lived through key historical events and the time travel of people who Flint would later meet should absolutely be included. As well as ital background notes about some of the episodes which have flashbacks during Flint's life (but, yes, not all of them like the 1 and a half minute appearance of DS9 characters in "Past Tense"). -FleetCaptain 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Khan and Flint Oh, yeah, my thoughts on Khan. Both he and Flint lived during the 20th century, were both alive in 1986 when the gang traveled back in time, and both were encountered by Kirk in the 2260s. Mentioning that as a connection in the article shouldnt be a problem. I *guess* that could go the way of a background note, if people insist, but I think it works in well the way it is now. -FleetCaptain 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :Well, we're not playing "Six degress of Captain Kirk", here... ;) Unless a specific connection has been made between individuals or events, they shouldn't be listed in the chronology section. After all, that's what we have chronology articles for, right? -- Cid Highwind 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I think the overall justification is that both Flint and Khan lived in the 20th century and they both encountered Captain Kirk in the 23rd. No other Original Series characters can make that claim so that is an important connection between the two. If it becomes a big issue after the article is finished with its expansion, I guess a background note would be the solution although I still see no great deal in simply stating that Flint was alive during the Eugenics Wars and, like Khan, he would later bump into Kirk in the 23rd century. I also think the producers of would have done us all a big favor if they had added Kirk saying the line "You know Bones, do you remember Flint and Khan? They're both alive...somewhere...right now." But of course they didnt! -FleetCaptain 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC) ::You're still playing "six degrees of separation". It doesn't matter if they lived at the same time or both met Kirk, they were not described as having met each other or having anything to do with each other. If you want a fun note, put it on your user page. It doesn't belong here. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :::I agree. Without something to back it up, it is pure speculation and shouldn't be on an article. You could also say that Khan, Flint, and Shannon O'Donnel were all alive at the same time so Janeway should have mentioned it. Where would such speculation stop?--31dot 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Oh My God! The man who Shannon O'Donnel his with her car was Flint!!!! (Just kidding...I see what you mean) :-) -FleetCaptain 22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I think the following would be a good b-ground note compromise: :Flint has the unique distinction of living in the 20th century and meeting Captain James Kirk in the 23rd. The only other Original Series character who did this was Khan Noonien Singh I honestly dont understand where the feeling is coming from that this isnt noteworthy; after all: of all the Original Series characters Flint and Khan were the only ones who fit this bill. That should be written down somewhere. I've heard all the views, though. Thanks for the inputs. -FleetCaptain 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I just cut out all the Khan material per the concerns here. Although I see nothing wrong with simply stating that Flint was alive when the Eugenics Wars occurred since that was a major historical event as established in other episodes. Thanks again for the varied inputs. -FleetCaptain 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Different Appearances I don't know how to add this to the article, but there is a perfectly logical solution to how Flint could have been so many people who looked different...they /didn't/ look different. I'll imagine that after the invention of photography, and especially after it entered popular use, Flint would have started laying low. Improving ID technology that makes it more and more impossible (or extremely vexing to our genius) Flint to ditch and switch identities to hide his long age, finally prompted him to leave Earth for a private planet. Before photographs though, there were only portraits...with painters that takes varying degrees of artistic licenses. There are different physical attributes deemed most attractive to men in different eras...or are considered appropriate to their persona. When Flint was Alexander the artists would have beautified him according to Greek standards of male beauty. When Flint was Leonardo of many talents...he would have been drawn more like Merlin. Shakespeare...Shakespeare's portrait wasn't painted until the 19th century! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4471515.stm - T'Sura 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :Interesting post, but none of that is canon and as such should be added to this article. -FC 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::Just wanted to clarify the FC meant it should not be added to this article. ;) --From Andoria with Love 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) :::How could the writers have Flint possibly claim to be Solomon the Wise when the he is a known biblical person? :::* 2 Samuel 12:24: [ Solomon Born ] Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her; and she gave birth to a son, and he named him Solomon. :::* 2 Chronicles 9:31: [ Death of Solomon ] And Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of his father David; and his son Rehoboam reigned in his place. :::* 2 Chronicles 9:30-31 (in Context) 2 Chronicles 9 (Whole Chapter) :::* 1 Kings 11:42: Thus the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. :::* 1 Kings 11:41-43 (in Context) 1 Kings 11 (Whole Chapter) :::--CompaqPresario 12:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC) :::: Well I'm sure their intent was simply to name those who were long lived or whose names were of significance. Then again, it is fiction, one way or the other. --Alan 13:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Yes. It is fiction. And crapp fiction steeming from boredom. Roddenberry invented one of the best sci-fi worlds ever, sure, but how he deas with religion... well, the less said about his crappy ways of dealing with the most important thing in this world the better... (form an angry and ireful christian star trek fan. Remastered Deleted Scene Any mention of Flint now being mortal was removed from the Remastered Version. In fact, McCoy's entire portion of the closing scene was removed. Therefor, in the "Remastered canon" Flint is still immortal. 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)JayS :No, he isn't. No scenes have been deleted in the remastered content. What has happened is that while airing on TV, they have been cut to pieces since they are being aired as syndication, where stuff is always cut to pieces to put in more advertisements. The same can be seen on TNG, DS9, and VOY reruns. Watch the remastered releases when they are on DVD, you will see the scene again. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::Confimred. the scenes are present on the DVD's. I've just finished watching that episode right this minute and there was McCoy, saying Flints going to die.--A Pickering 00:38, January 27, 2010 (UTC) Massive gutting of article I removed this (too much to list) as being entirely...speculated, for lack of a better word. None of this was ever stated in said episode, nor is it relevant to the character. Sure, I lived during the Gulf War, or my dad during Vietnam, but I wouldn't ever expect to read any of that in either of our bios, esp. while not have knowing participated is said events, nor ever encountered someone who was in the same space-time as me, but whom I happened not to see. --Alan 05:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :I agree with some of the deletions, but I think you were a bit overzealous. A lot of what you removed is good background data, especially data about Pollack, time travel events of characters who would meet or had met Flint, and data about him being alive during Enterprise. And there really wasn't any need to cut pictures which were simply there to make the article look better. Also, I could think of a more polite edit summary than "removed speculative riff raff" http://memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=Flint&diff=856744&oldid=854516 considering the time I spent on this article. How about "removed disputed material"? That would have been a bit more polite. I responded in detail down below. -FC 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :I don't disagree with cutting some of the material, but the data about Flint being around when the time travel incidents from other series took place is canon and there should be nothing wrong with having it in the the article as background material. Also the reference to Reginald Pollack was very much canon and a statement about when he lived should absolutely be included. Also nothing wrong with saying that Flint was alive during Enterprise, especially since there was a 5th season episode in the works about him. And why cut the photos which are simply there to make the article look better? I plan to restore some of this, just to let everyone know. Also, if such large material is removed, we should put it on the talk page to work with later. -FC 13:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ::Please don't - for the most part, that is... images that have nothing do do with Flint, but just illustrate something that Flint might have encountered should not be in the article. For the same reason, even information about events that Flint might have encountered do not really have a place here - that's just filler material. After all, we'd otherwise have to duplicate our whole "Earth history" article. Last but not least, the episode apparently doesn't even state that Flint lived as Pollock'', just that he has an image created by Pollock in his possession. We shouldn't speculate too much about that fact. -- Cid Highwind 13:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :We can certainly work with this. Some of the deletions were valid. But some of the things can be put back in as background notes. I'll work slowly over the next few weeks so changes can be analyzed for correctness. Happy J-4th! -FC 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Really? I mean is the concept of this topic just so easy to grasp that it needs to be made complicated for lack of anything better to do? Flint appeared in one episode, and was subtly mentioned in one other. He wasn't on Enterprise, he wasn't in Star Trek: First Contact, etc., so citing references from other series'/episodes' en mass that were speculatively tied to Flint when he wasn't mentioned in said reference is nothing more than adding a whole bunch of unnecessarily frivolous information that cannot be confirmed. Even mentioning it as background data is one long stretch...--Alan 15:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :I'll see what I can come up with then and let you know. -FC 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Extra episode pictures I researched the and policies about using pictures in articles that are outside of a particular episode. The situation we have with the pyramid picture is as follows: Flint states he was born in Mesopotamia and that he lived through the ancient world. He also lived as Alexander and Solomon, and knew Moses. Throughout the lifetimes of these three figures, the pyramids were in existence. The pyramids themselves are then seen in another episode, i.e. City on the Edge of Forever. We therefore have Flint speaking on a topic which is then seen through the Guardian of Forever in another episode. Now, as far as having a picture in the actual episode article, that could arguably be not allowed since the episode didn't portray them. But this is an article about the actual character and is not confined to the episode (this also, BTW is the reason why a picture of Leonardo da Vinci is in this article even though that picture comes from another episode as well, i.e. it is all about Flint. I ask that we not have an edit war and people be mature here. This is from the canon policy and therefore should be allowed. -FC 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) : Flint was da Vinci, a direct connection was made. He had nothing to do with the pyramids, he never mentioned the pyramids, nor are the pyramids relevant to Mesopotamia, or really, directly to any of the other names mentioned. --Alan 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC) ::Personally I don't see why the image is necessary. I'm not sure about canon policy in this particular case but why do we need a picture of "the ancient world". Overall I don't care either way just wondering why. – Morder 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC) As Fletcher Christian said to Captain Bligh: "Its a debatable point, but a good subject for a dinner's conversation." Speaking of dinner, that's where I'm headed so sadly cannot continue this right now. See everyone tomorrow! -FC 22:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) : And as Cid stated above: "Please don't - for the most part, that is... images that have nothing do do with Flint, but just illustrate something that Flint might have encountered should not be in the article. " Readding it despite the concerns is creating a potential edit war...not avoiding it --Alan 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) :::The "Canon policy" is an important policy around here, but I'm not sure how it really applies in this case. We're removing stuff that is disallowed according to the canon policy - but that doesn't mean that we necessarily keep everything that is not disallowed. :::In this case, content had been removed not because of the canon policy, but because of other factors - most importantly, I think, "relevancy". A (bad) picture of a pyramid is not relevant to Flint, as long as the only connection is some obscure statement about him living in "the Ancient World". -- Cid Highwind 06:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Pictures out due to valid concerns. If this ever goes FA (which one day I hope it will) we can discuss this again since the article I feel is lacking pictures for some of its sections. But that is a debate for another day. -FC 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) ::::If this article is so desperate for pictures, why aren't there really any pictures from his actions during the episode - just the planet establishing shot and a face picture? - AJ Halliwell 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Stone Age Name I haven't been able to find anything at all about Flint be named after a stone age tool so removed that single sentence from the article. -FC 12:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC) : Regarding the "Entertainment Weekly reference", nice find i suppose, however, where are the specifics on which E-Weekly (ie which issue, when was it issued, which page, etc)? --Alan 12:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Got most of that from an e-mail from an editor. A little hesitant to put the person's name and e-mail address in the actual article as a citation but I can find out the issue and such without too much trouble. -FC 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Hitler Flint could have been Hitler. His body was never found :First, it is not true that his body was never found (see Wikipedia) and second, article talk pages are not for posting our personal speculations. 31dot (talk) 21:20, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I stand corrected. Consolidating the key dates The chronology section of the article is divided into subsections on different eras, each of which ends with a list of "key dates". This key dates thing basically takes a relative short text above it, and offers an equally short summary - most of these key dates things have only between 2-4 entries. I'd like to propose taking the short key dates, and consolidating them into one big list in a new subsection at the end of the chronology, maybe called "overview" or something. The way the dates work now isn't all that useful; they summarize a ~bit of text that doesn't need all that much summarizing. But on the other hand, having one master timeline of Flint's complex life, to easily reference instead of having to read the entire article, seems like it would enhance the article. Or at least that's how I feel - but it's a big change so I'm asking for feedback on the idea first. Thoughts and opinions? -- Capricorn (talk) 17:25, July 27, 2017 (UTC) :I agree to split the "chronology" as a list, from the "biography" of the text. :The following probably goes beyond this specific discussion, but I agree with a number of the way up above comments that this page needs something of an overhaul, as a whole. :It might be easier if we just limited what was alluded to in Flint's one TOS episode appearance (short of an episode summary), and the offhand VOY reference, while retaining the ambiguity of his personas to each of their corresponding pages, and excluding histories of those personas from this page, read: not so much detail, just general stuff here, though some fanciful web-building techniques. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 17:58, July 27, 2017 (UTC) There's something to that idea, general info on "incarnations" should be mostly on pages for those historical figures, and treated here mostly in summary form. I'm not sure what changes that would entail in practice, but it's worth thinking about. The ambiguity issue is something I've thought about as well, in the past, but I've never really figured out a satisfactory way to change the article. Hence why you only saw me making a small incremental suggestion. (heck, some of these dates might not be good canon either, but I'll leave that for the future as well) For now I'm going to go ahead and consolidate the dates. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:19, July 30, 2017 (UTC) Death Was he really dead by 2269, they didn't actually show that he dies. :Here's the dialogue: So he may have years. I'll fix the notation. --LauraCC (talk) 16:17, February 3, 2018 (UTC)